Notre Dame: Yes We Can Abort
by Ted Slater on 05/18/2009 at 10:10 AM
So an extremely pro-abortion politician was reading some words yesterday during the commencement ceremony at Notre Dame.
Suddenly someone in the audience declared the obvious: "Abortion is murder."
The response from the audience: a cacophony of boos, followed by Notre Dame's popular football cheer "WE ARE ND." According to the official White House transcript, a few of those present also chanted the cute campaign slogan "yes, we can."
[Editor's note: I've edited the previous paragraph for accuracy, to emphasize that "yes, we can" was spoken by a minority of those attending the event. I've also removed the three paragraphs that had followed this one, which wrongly defamed Notre Dame for what a few in the audience said in response to the pro-life disrupter. Thank you to ND students Matthew, Alden and Michael for your gentle correction.]
I'm reminded of Stephen, who challenged the religious leaders of his day by declaring that they had "received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it." Their response? They were "enraged" and "ground their teeth at him," and then finally "they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him" and killed him.
In the face of truth, the religious types angrily refused to listen.
I'm also reminded of Jesus Himself, who made a spectacle of Himself by indecorously shouting His God-informed opinions in, of all places, the Temple. But Jesus didn't stop with mere declarations; He also overturned tables and threatened people with the whip He had made. The concluding verse of that section of Scripture speaks of the zeal that consumed Jesus.
Certainly, the attendees of Notre Dame's commencement ceremony wanted some propriety. They didn't want a political speech interrupted with words from some uninvited pro-baby zealot. That's understandable, I suppose.
But it does leave me wondering when it is appropriate to disturb the peace with words of truth. When is it appropriate to say things that cause some in the crowd to cover their ears and rush at you? When is it appropriate to shout your words, even in sacred spaces?
Stephen did it. Jesus did it. There may be times when it's God's will that I follow the audacity of their example.
1. obewan said the following at 10:45 AM on May 18:
This does not come as a surprise to me, and I would not blame the University for the outspoken opinions of the students.
My experience with young Catholics has been that they can have many opinions in direct opposition to their church.
When I worked in "liberal" New England, I was under constant mocking and persecution for my views on abortion by the young Catholics I worked with.
They were not attending church, living in open sexual sin, getting frequently drunk, and supporting abortion rights. Yet, they continued to identify as Catholic. They were Republicans too, but that was mostly because they worked in defense and knew where their paychecks came from. If pressed, they would rather have seen the party move left and soften its position on abortion. I am sure the Catholic parents that raised them had very different political views.
2. EKB said the following at 11:29 AM on May 18:
As a Notre Dame student, I've had very mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand, I'm strongly pro-life, and I'm upset that the University seemingly ignored the counsel of the Bishops. However, ND does have a tradition of inviting the president to speak at graduation in his inaugural year. I am perplexed as to why an honorary degree was given, though.
Groups on and off campus were active in protests. Protests by non-students tended to use more shock tactics. Personally, I think the inflammatory protests tended to be ineffective, at least in this situation. For example, for two weeks there was constantly a plane over campus with a banner of an aborted fetus. I think there are numerous ways that money could have been more effectively spent to save lives, such as through donations to crisis pregnancy centers.
I think the student-run group ND Response handled this in an ideal way. Rather than making a scene at graduation, they held a prayer service at the Grotto, a popular prayer spot on campus. The dialog these students created was admirable, and I know for a fact they were instrumental in changing hearts and minds on this issue.
One final note: please don't allow this incident to singlehandedly define your opinion of Notre Dame. It is a fine institution, and it still does a lot of good in the world. Don't write it off as a lost cause; pray instead that ND would return to its roots.
3. Ryan said the following at 11:36 AM on May 18:
All the more ironic is that these "pro-life" Catholics who supported Obama to come (I'm sorry-- if you believe its a trivial matter that babies are murdered in utero then it doens't MATTER what policies you have that care for people when they are out of the womb) cheered for him... there was hardly a commotion.
Fact is, you wouldn't see that if the speaker was conservative. You would see students throw pie in their faces, unfurl banners in front of the stage, storm the stage, and all manner of protestation.
Sometimes I envy leftist's zeal... if we actually believed abortion was murder, how far should we go to stop a virulent pro-life speaker coming to a university?
4. Megan said the following at 11:59 AM on May 18:
Did you expect anything less from the people in attendence of the ceremony? There were opportunities right outisde the campus to protest ... so one can assume that most in attendance weren't completely against BO's commencement speech.
I think the men yelling "abortion is murder" during the President's speech knew the result ...
If the administration at Notre Dame wanted to avoid all this, then they knew that they shouldn't being in someone to speak with such a liberal prowess. Too bad; personally, the alumni of the college should be looking at the moral dignity of the administration and make some changes, if that's possible. For instance, stop giving money to the college. That will change a lot of minds.
The President's words are hollow when he says things like, "Let's work on reducing the number of abortions," when he single-handedly reinstated government funding for world-wide abortion. When you say, within law, that abortion is a perfectly reasonable choice to make, then you've lowered many people's moral standard because unfortunately, many people use the law as their moral standard. Also, he said that abortion was perfectly OK for his children if they ever make the mistake of becoming pregnant.
Christians need to step up the Christ-likeness and be ready to accept people into the church who are pregnant with nowhere else to turn to ... because abortion is generally a pregnant teenager's easy choice to make. What are we doing as Christians to make Christ a better choice? We know what He can do for anyone who puts their trust in Him; we need to make that a priority.
5. Matt said the following at 12:07 PM on May 18:
To Obewan #1:
As a Catholic, I can assure you that it is contrary to Catholic teaching to hold views in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. In fact those who do put themselves outside the Church.
It is quite common that many people call themselves Catholic when they don't bother practicing the faith or even believing in it. It's similar to the phenomenon of Jewish people claiming to be Jews who don't practice of believe in their own religion.
6. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:22 PM on May 18:
Comment 1, I was raised Catholic but have not practiced since attaining adulthood.
For some reason, many people, both secular and biblical, seem to believe that "once a Catholic...always a Catholic."
I once mentioned to a friend that I had been raised Catholic, without any reference to my current religious status.
A few weeks later he mentioned something about "since you're (meaning me) Catholic."
When I told him I had not considered myself Catholic for twenty years he gave me a very puzzled look.
So...a lot of people may "identify themselves" as Catholic while their actions/beliefs directly contradict that church.
I'm with you actually, I don't understand why these young people don't seek a more liberal church, but I guess that is their business.
Oh, and if you asked my immediate family they would say I was "Catholic."
Not worth arguing, in my opinion.
If it makes them happy to say I'm a fire hydrant, then so be it.
7. Megan said the following at 12:23 PM on May 18:
John Piper's DesiringGod ministries posted this link on their site.
8. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:47 PM on May 18:
Comment 5, "Jewish" is also defined as a racial identity not just a religion.
Usually such people are described as "non-practicing Jews."
9. brx said the following at 1:39 PM on May 18:
Stephen did it. Jesus did it. There may be times when it's God's will that I follow the audacity of their example.
Good question Ted, how does one discern that? John the baptist calls people vipers, Jesus does too, Stephen makes a tactless speech... I'm hard-pressed to understand exactly what they were hoping to accomplish with that mode of communication.
Prov 15:1 clearly says "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."
They would have known that one. Maybe the prophets, John, Jesus, and Stephen deliberately stirred up anger to later turn it with gentle teaching?? I'm not sure... Could it be more or less appropriate in certain cultural contexts??
10. Rachael said the following at 1:46 PM on May 18:
I think I would be too shy to do some kind of solo outspoken declaration of my belief in a crowd, if it weren't a formal speech or if I weren't presented with the platform....
I recently read about Stephen in Acts. On a sidenote, it's interesting he was one of the honorable men chosen to "serve tables", to deal with the problem of the neglect of widows. I don't know if I've ever noticed that he was one of those.
And on another note...Kind-of related to outspokenness...
I've recently reflected upon the crowds in Jesus' day, and how people were asking for Barrabbas' release....and I blogged about it. Here is the entry:
Jesus died for sins of the past, present, and future. For those He has redeemed, sin’s cost has been paid. And I’m a sinner, so, my sin is among the sin that nailed Him to the cross. But the thought ”I killed Christ” on the surface seems too drastic for me to put myself in the place of the “I”.
Yet, if I had been witnessing Pilate’s decision, would I have been among the crowd crying out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” (John 19) ? Even if I truly had believed at that moment that He was the Savior, perhaps at best I would have kept quiet. I likely would not have been of enough faith or bravery to shout out pleas to release Jesus instead of Barabbas. Maybe I would have even cried out with the crowd, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas” (Luke 23), if I had not yet come to a saving faith in Christ. And if so, I could have very well played a part in, crucifying Christ.
It’s interesting that Peter directly placed responsibility for Christ’s crucifixion on people in his very presence. In Acts 2:36 he says, “this Jesus whom you crucified” and in the next chapter “But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.” (3:14-15)
In those days, people were becoming Christians like crazy, perhaps including many of the very crowd who once demanded Barabbas’ release and Jesus’ death. And if I were in the crowd, perhaps I would have asked for the same…
11. brx said the following at 1:52 PM on May 18:
"Abortion is murder."
I think "murder" has become a common nondescript word today and that statement too cliche. In retrospect, if I were the yeller, I hope I'd say something a little more provocative; maybe...
Abortion is a waste of a beautiful life!
Abortion is selfish and morally sick!
Abortion kills minority children!
Abortion kills black people! - Stoppit! (if an Obama was present)
Grace, peace & purposeful adventures in audacity
12. Christina Y said the following at 2:17 PM on May 18:
Catholic or Protestant, there were too many Christians who have overlooked Obama's views on life issues such as abortion.
There are many Protestants as well who go against Christ's teaching. The difference is that Protestants divide themselves up into many groups and they find a church of people that think like them. By dividing into groups, your beliefs become more uniform and the stats look better.
The Catholic church is a universal church, mixed with the sheep and the the wolves in sheep's clothing. Unfortunately, those wolves in sheep's clothing bring much attention away from the many Catholics who are very firm in the teachings of Christ and His Church. We do not divide ourselves up, so the faithful get diluted, unfortunately.
A final note, the story of Stephen is not quite a good example. A majority of Catholics who support Obama do not even attend a weekly Church service. I would hardly compare them to the religious types. The Pharisees liked to follow the law very closely. By not attending even a weekly service, these people are not living a religious life.
13. BDB said the following at 8:11 PM on May 18:
Stephen, Jesus and John the Baptist? I guess you follow their public-speaking example when you're ready to be martyred...
14. Matthew said the following at 9:07 PM on May 18:
I respectfully request a retraction of this article.
I am a member of Notre Dame's class of 2009 and I was in attendance at yesterday afternoon's commencement. I was there as four protesters were escorted out and I cheered with the other students. I do believe that Mr. Slater, the author of this piece, has some key facts that are at the heart of this piece incorrect.
First of all, the protester yelled out long before Mr. Obama mentioned abortion at all, which was seen by the student body as a disturbance of our celebration of our graduation. Secondly, the student body responded not with pro-Obama chants, but rather with a popular football cheer "WE ARE ND," a proud affirmation of our accomplishments, accomplishments which some protesters felt were not important, therefore decided to use our commencement as a soap box for their views.
I am strongly pro-life, but I was very upset that such demonstrations took place in this forum. One of the protesters sat next to my good friend's thirteen year old sister and she later said that she was scared for her safety by the activists. These activists could very well have joined the protests just outside the area, which consisted of a mass and a prayer vigil with Bishop D'Arcy. This would have been very effective in my mind and I would have been there myself had I not been graduating.
This article failed to mention that the parts of the President's speech that received the loudest standing ovations were those that mentioned commonly held desires of both the pro-life and pro-choice movements: decreased barriers to adoption (which are many), increased health care for pregnant mothers who cannot afford to support themselves, and assistance to low-income families. Such goals of helping the less fortunate are undoubtedly both Biblical and Catholic, and I am proud of the student body for supporting these goals articulated by the President.
This being said, there were a few comments made by the President that I did not agree with, but these points were countered beautifully by Judge Noonan's address soon after.
The student body did not invite President Obama and it may be true that a Catholic University had no business honoring an individual who is publicly pro-choice, but I ask only that the student body is portrayed fairly and accurately in this matter.
Thank you.
15. Kaley said the following at 9:39 PM on May 18:
I hope this doesn't come off as mean, but sometimes on this blog you sound so self righteous. I am a Christian and pro-life...I have recently began a closer walk with Jesus after a few years of doubting. But this blog makes me feel bad about myself. I understand, you're a part of FOTF, and thus you hold certain viewpoints and that's fine. Maybe I should be more 'self-confident,' but I was hoping that maybe you could present your views a little more lovingly in the future.
16. Sam said the following at 9:45 PM on May 18:
"So an extremely pro-abortion politician . . ."
Mr. Slater, do you think it is appropriate to refer to the President of the United States that way, an exclusively that way? In the first words of your post?
There is a certain audacity in how you disparage the authority which God has established with that opening, and I think you make it harder for your argument to penetrate the hearts of those with whom you disagree but doing so. Moreover, your widely-read words many it harder for anyone trying to convince those with whom you disagree. Consider next time how your powerful words can change hearts and minds. Right now, sir, I think they merely say "hooray for our side" and distort how God says to respect those who He has put in authority over us.
17. BDB said the following at 10:13 PM on May 18:
I'm going to be the voice of civility here and say that interrupting people while they are giving a speech is very bad form. I've had it done to me by leftist students who would rather just play shout down the Christian. It did NOT make me more amenable to their line of thinking. It made me think they were idiots.
Do you want to win this public policy debate? Save your hard-hitting questions for the question-and-answer period. Think them through carefully so they cut straight to the heart.
I had dinner with Gloria Allred and Norma McCorvey in college. Ms. Allred apparently thought it was a dinner with only supporters, because a few students active in the 'women's center' crashed the dinner. We had enough food, so we let them.
Two of us were staunchly pro-life. But she didn't know that. It was fascinating to watch her speak freely, thinking everyone was on her side. Never in my life have I seen someone dripping with more hatred for men and Christians.
Norma McCorvey was really bothered by this, and got up and left the table in the middle of dinner. The student who was the director of the Convocation series spent most of the dinner speaking with her privately in another room.
At the public speech, there were a couple of people shouting at Glora Allred. The other pro-life guy at the dinner actually had the job of going and talking to these activists. Put him in a difficult place, because he agreed with them, but they needed to direct their comments at the speaker after the speech, in the question-and-answer period.
At the end of the speeches, as they were getting into the limo to go back to the airport, I stopped McCorvey and said that while I disagreed with her, I respected her.
As you may know, Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade subsequently converted to Christianity and is now a staunch pro-Life advocate. She was protesting in South Bend along with other pro-lifers.
I'm sure she doesn't remember me. But one of the things that moved her on the path towards conversion was a girl asking her why she didn't like children. Not yelling at her in a speech, simply asking a question that cut to her heart.
Isn't it just like God to take the symbol of evil and convert it?
18. Ted Slater said the following at 10:47 PM on May 18:
Kaley (#15) -- welcome to the blog. Great to have you here.
Can you be more specific about what comes across as "self righteous," what about the blog makes you feel bad about yourself? I honestly am interested in better understanding what you're saying.
It is very important to promote the gospel, the good news that Jesus was crucified and raised to life so that we might become reconciled with our Creator. It's also important to be "salt" and "light" to our generation. That's what this particular blog is about.
My love for my three darling daughters, who were once pre-born babies inside my precious wife's womb, also motivated me to write this blog. As is my sincere question about when it is appropriate as Christ-followers to disturb the peace in our efforts to promote the truth. These are tough questions that we need to wrestle with.
19. Ted Slater said the following at 11:01 PM on May 18:
Sam (#16) -- yes, I think my first sentence is appropriate. I included a link in it that *proves* that this particular politician is the most pro-
murderabortion President in the history of our nation. That is his primary and most fundamental characteristic: a vicious distain for the lives of the most vulnerable among us.I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how I might have improved my blog to appeal more to those who are ending the lives of the pre-born.
For many of our readers, pregnancy is a theoretical concept. For me, it is real. I have three daughters. I've witnessed them grow from rice-sized life inside my wife to something larger that the ultrasound showed had a spine and a beating heart. I saw each of them take their very first breath. This life, that has made itself known months before it was born ... is what our President is happy to see killed. I'll say it again: killed. Not hypothetically killed, but really killed.
Help me understand how I can "respect" (to use your word) the pro-abortion positions of a man who is pleased to see such precious tiny lives snuffed out.
20. BDB said the following at 12:01 AM on May 19:
Matthew (#14) - I submit for your consideration that retraction is the wrong response.
We have a serious problem in the U.S. with people wanting to silence speech they disagree with. I see it on both sides of the political aisle, and it makes me fear for the future of our country.
Over and over again, I watch relatively young (below 40) people in positions of authority order Christians to be silenced, whether at work, at school, or in other places. They've heard "separation of church and state" so often on TV that they think the safe course of action is to just silence people. They've never read the actual laws. They don't understand that people have the right to speak.
Use of positional authority to silence speech eventually encourages some to use violence to silence speech.
In a free society we cannot tolerate violence used to silence speech.
Which means that we must allow those we disagree with to speak. It is only by allowing their speech that we ensure ourselves the right to speak also.
We can rebut their argument. We can answer them, point-by-point.
Frankly, there are some parts of the Christian spectrum that would like to silence many of the comments here; pretend that disagreements don't exist. All that does is drive the disagreement underground, where it cannot be challenged.
Much better to get ideas out in the open where they can be discussed. There are many eyes watching and ears listening - especially on this blog - people who want to read what is true.
The massive quantity of comments here at the Boundless Line are excellent reminders that this particular ministry of FOTF is quite relevant.
The blog post should stay up, as should your comment.
21. Mason said the following at 2:03 AM on May 19:
BDB, you make a beautiful point about how some talk when they think they are surrounded by supporters. I've heard this from liberals, conservatives, christians and others. It illustrates that they no longer consider the "other" a human being. They are simply the enemy.
Ted, you do this when you say president Obama is “happy” to see life killed. He is “pleased to see such tiny lives snuffed out.” As though Obama is chuckling at the thought of all those fetuses in the dumpsters outside of abortion clinics. Instead of writing Obama off as a caricature of evil, take BDB’s example of Norma McCorvey, a woman who was the “symbol of evil” for many. Yet she changed her beliefs.
Think of Obama not as a symbol of evil but someone you believe is wrong. Whose mind could be changed. Then reexamine your language. Maybe then you won’t need to ask what seems so self-righteous about this blog.
22. Sheridan said the following at 4:29 AM on May 19:
What is with Christians getting so 'offended' by other Christians all the time? I shake my head every time I read a comment saying, 'You need to be more gracious' or 'you are not acting in love' when someone (like Ted)states the plain obvious.
Are you going to end up like the people in John 6:60?
'On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.'
23. Chris said the following at 5:55 AM on May 19:
Ted writes:
Help me understand how I can "respect" (to use your word) the pro-abortion positions of a man who is pleased to see such precious tiny lives snuffed out.
Yes, because we all know he smiles and does a little jig whenever a staff member gives him weekly updates on the number of abortions in this country.
24. Tiff said the following at 6:57 AM on May 19:
Ted writes: "That is his primary and most fundamental characteristic: a vicious distain for the lives of the most vulnerable among us."
To quote President Obama's speech from Sunday:
"Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature."
Ted, your comments reduce the President to a caricature. I am pro-life, but as a woman who has faced an unwanted pregnancy, scared and alone, I understand the arguments from people on the other side.
No one should be reduced and summed up by one belief. And by what basis do you say that his pro-choice position is his most fundamental characteristic? I think the President is wrong on this score. But it is self-righteous and it belittles his humanity to say that this is what defines him.
25. Sheridan said the following at 7:30 AM on May 19:
Tiff:
Is is self-righteous of me to define Hitler by his act of killing 6 million Jews? Am I belittling Hitler's humanity by saying he was an evil murderer? No. Because thats what he was. Being responsible for the murder of many, many innocent lives DOES define a person. The crux of the whole abortion debate is whether or not abortion is murder. According to the Bible abortion is murder, and yet so many Christians choose to turn a blind eye and say that the issue is not as important.
It is not our right as Christians to dictate or choose what parts of the Bible we are going to believe and follow, or what parts are more important.
You believe ALL of it, or NONE of it. You stand for ALL of it, or NONE of it.
26. Jim H said the following at 8:23 AM on May 19:
Sheridan,
Well put! To those of us who think of abortion as the American holocaust, someone's stance on abortion IS a defining characteristic. Something is wrong with Christians whose blood does not boil at the thought of snuffing out so many innocent lives.
It is time for more Christians, particularly on the Protestant side (the Catholic Church for the most part has been the main public torch bearer on this issue), to grow some intestinal fortitide and stand up for what you believe in and what the Bible teaches.
I believe America in in the process of being judged for the blood of these 40 million unborn babies. This is evidenced by the rapid downward spiral in moral values and personal accountability (everyone is a victim; it's always someone elses fault, etc.). Corruption is pervasive - government, corporations, individuals etc.
Capitalism and Representative Democracy are the most robust systems that have ever been devised in modern times, but not even this system can withstand the ravages of pervasive corruption - from the top levels of government and business leadership all the way down to the individual. And I believe this is happening in part because of the blood of 40 million unborn children.
27. Alden said the following at 9:18 AM on May 19:
I think it's worthwhile to again note, along with Matthew (#14) that the response of the crowd at Notre Dame was to chant "We are ND," a school cheer, not "Yes, we can." The New York Times article may have been unclear about this. Ted, your post charges that Notre Dame students showed blatant support for President Obama and the statement:
"Yes we can continue to murder pre-born babies; your pro-life opinion here is unwelcome."
This simply is not true and, as a Notre Dame student, I would very much appreciate the correction of this information and a change in the tone.
Students responded in this way for two reasons. First, because graduation is not the place for a political debate. It is a celebration of the achievements of the senior class. Second, as Christian hosts, we are called to be welcoming (though not affirming, which we weren't). We did not invite the President in order to launch disrespectful and angry pro-life protesters at him. As a respectful student body, we rejected the disrespect showed by pro-life protesters to (1) our guest (despite his abortion position) and (2) our graduating seniors.
Ted, I think you need to respond to these kinds of comments, those which bring real critique, not the weak, ambiguous claims of those you did respond to. Yes, your post intends to spark debate about when it is appropriate for Christians to voice their opinions. But, from the comments, no one's paid attention to that aim. Instead, your tone decries the "non-Christian" response of Notre Dame students toward a pro-life protester, a position which you've hardly substantiated.
I think that both your post and your lack of response to Matthew's comment are uncharitable. I urge you to please reconsider the tone of your post toward the Notre Dame community in light of incorrect facts and, from your tone, what I assume is your lack of personal knowledge of the situation. Thanks.
28. obewan said the following at 9:22 AM on May 19:
#25. Sheridan had the following to say on May 19 at 7:30 AM:
"Tiff:
Is is self-righteous of me to define Hitler by his act of killing 6 million Jews? Am I belittling Hitler's humanity by saying he was an evil murderer? No. Because thats what he was. Being responsible for the murder of many, many innocent lives DOES define a person."
------------------------------------
We need to be careful to not unfairly demonize him though. Yes, he is like a Nazi. But, he IS trying to save SOME babies from death by abortion in the same way that SOME Nazi's tried to save SOME Jews from death in the gas chambers. (i.e. Being a Democrat does not make him a “Hitler”.)
We also need to realize that Obama is not the person committing murder. That would be the mother or doctor involved in the abortion procedure. And it is an individual crime. One person is not responsible for 24 million crimes all by themselves.
Finally, Obama did not START abortions. They were already here when he came to office. AND, if he were not in office, and we had a McCain or Reagan in his place, we would still have them.
I by no means support abortions, but I think we can do a lot more to save unwanted babies by doing what he suggests and supporting an environment where fewer women will get abortions.
And THEN, if we pray hard enough, maybe he will soften some of his policy positions.
29. Matthew said the following at 10:09 AM on May 19:
In response to Mr. DBD (#20), I do completely understand and support your desire for promoting the freedom of speech, and indeed this "open discussion" message was at the heart of president Obama's address as well. I wanted to merely clarify some facts that Mr. Slayer got wrong in this argument. One fact, claiming that the students were chanting "YES WE CAN" in support of our president and his views is so terribly and utterly false. This shows up in the blogs title and implies that the student body supports Obama's views on abortion. I took personal offense to this because a majority of the student population is strongly pro-life and I feel that Mr. Slayer has no call to slander us through made up facts.
Just to be clear, Mr. DBD, I was requesting a retraction due to the slanderous statements which were clearly not true. Surely you do not support made up facts and false statements in an intelligent discussion.
and a second point...
Tiff (#24): I believe that you truly did get the message from Obama's speech, unlike Sheridan (#25). Obama discussed not casting the mother of an unexpected pregnancy as a criminal, but rather as a victim that needed help. Indeed the Virgin Mary found herself as the victim of an unexpected pregnancy, and if it were not for the kindness and help of Joseph, she would have been in a terrible predicament. In his speech, President Obama said he wants to REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS (pro-choice but anti-abortion, possibly?) by programs that help the mothers with adoption and by increasing healthcare for such mothers. The Virgin Mary would have undoubtedly been grateful for these helpful programs in her time, too. After all, is it not our call to love all people, rather than criminalizing them? God is love, correct?
Now I do admit that such programs are not ideal, but I do offer that they are a huge step in the right direction. Also, it remains to be seen if President Obama will follow through with his promises mentioned above or if he was just at Notre Dame trying to gather votes for his next election in three and a half years. I prayed last night that he is being genuine in his claims and is not merely trying to gather votes, and I hope the others on this message board will do the same.
Thank you
30. Michael said the following at 10:15 AM on May 19:
Just as a note. I am one of the graduates at Sunday's graduation ceremony, and when the protesters yelled "Abortion is Murder," we did not chant "Yes We Can." Listen again. We chant our school chant. "We are ND." It was a way for us to claim back our graduation ceremony. I am a strong pro-life Evangelical who agrees with the protestors, but I do not believe my graduation is the place for them to make their stand. Do not politicize the celebration of my 16 years of hard work. Once again, the outside world, who has nothing to do with Notre Dame, jumps to a conclusion about its students. Please give us the benefit of the doubt next time.
31. Jeremy said the following at 11:00 AM on May 19:
"According to the Bible abortion is murder, and yet so many Christians choose to turn a blind eye and say that the issue is not as important."
This is a ridiculous simplification. The Bible never addresses abortion, and the proof-texts often used as support are relatively weak, although many do not realize this, because they have never thought through the issue Biblically in a serious way. On top of that, putting all of one's political emphasis on an issue that no candidate for any office is likely to change seems ... short-sighted.
32. Ted Slater said the following at 11:34 AM on May 19:
Matthew (#14), Alden (#27) and Michael (#30) -- I've listened to the audio, from a variety of sources. The primary chant is clearly "We are ND." However, I can hear some women chanting "Yes we can" between the "boos" and the "We are ND."
The official White House transcript affirms that some people in the audience shouted "Yes we can." You may not have heard it from where you were sitting, but others clearly did.
The following sources also say that people in the crowd had chanted "Yes we can":
Again, the primary chant was clearly "We are ND." A minority of those present in the audience were chanting "Yes we can." Because of that fact, it was wrong for me to criticize the entire ND audience as supportive of Obama's pro-abortion policies. But because that phrase was chanted, I don't think it's appropriate to retract this blog post.
33. BDB said the following at 11:48 AM on May 19:
Matthew (#29) - speaking of accuracy, you have both my and Ted's posting handle misspelled.
It's always good to seek clarification when you believe specific facts are innaccurate. Attention to detail is important!
34. The G said the following at 11:58 AM on May 19:
Regarding post #4:
Pregnancy is never a mistake, but the actions leading up to it can be.
While abortion may be "perfectly OK" for his daughters, it certainly won't be for his slaughtered grandchildren.
I learned a catchy line from a PETA campaign DVD promoting vegetarianism:
"Any way you cut it, it's still flesh."
35. Keith said the following at 12:20 PM on May 19:
Maybe it wasn't the students after all; maybe Bob the Builder was chanting in the audience "Yes We Can."
In any case, what I don't understand is how people like Obama can't see the link between the way African Americans have been dehumanized, abused, mistreated, and marginalized, and how the same thing is happening to unborn babies today. Those who have the power can define the powerless as sub-human. They did it to Africans, they are now doing it to unborn children. I just hope Obama can realize this connection.
36. BDB said the following at 12:39 PM on May 19:
Honestly, at this point I see President Obama wrestling with this issue a lot more than many on the Left. I've read his book, and he really does try to think through the angles.
At this juncture, I think there's an opportunity for a couple of pro-Life congressmen to call his bluff. Introduce legislation to make inter-state adoptions easier.
This will still be quite contentious. On the West Coast, adoption is easier, in part because parental rights are terminated when the birth parents sign the paperwork immediately after the birth. One of the things that scares adoptivie couples in some states are the laws allowing the birth parents to go back up to 18 years later and seek to have their parental rights restored. Imagine the nightmare of someone showing up after six years and taking your child.
Some will scream in outrage at the idea of allowing Federal adoptions that skirt these parental rights. But it's discussion we need to have if we really want to reduce abortions by increasing adoptions. And frankly, we need to start somewhere.
37. Jim H said the following at 1:00 PM on May 19:
Jeremy #31,
This is the text that convinced me that God sees personhood in the womb. Is it possible to be more clear than this?
Jeremiah 1: 4-5 (ESV)
4 Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
38. IMO said the following at 1:55 PM on May 19:
Jim,
I wouldn't bother...Jeremy's on a mission to skew Scripture to how he sees fit....and he thinks he's genuinely doing us a service, opening our eyes to the truth...
39. JB said the following at 2:23 PM on May 19:
Jim,
Honestly, I don't see it either, for a few reasons. Here, God is saying that He has ordained Jeremiah to be a prophet prior to his conception. God being omnipotent and omniscient, this seems as though it is necessarily true. Prior to the act of Creation, even, God would have chosen Jeremiah to be a prophet. It could not have been otherwise.
This, however, does not imply that Jeremiah, or any one else, in utero is morally equivalent to a human person. To draw this conclusion requires a significant logical leap which is not justified by the text. Jeremiah is "known" or "chosen" (NIV's alternate translation) prior to being "formed." This statement expressly does not locate God's act of ordination at the moment of conception, it occurs before. If you are using this passage to say that Jeremiah is a person at conception, why not the egg or sperm from which he was conceived?
God's knowledge or selection of Jeremiah prior to his conception does not imply that personhood occurs at the moment of conception.
40. Ted Slater said the following at 2:49 PM on May 19:
JB (#39) -- I've addressed this before, coincidentally to Jeremy. Let me copy-paste a few comments I've written on this subject, just to get them all in one place....
* * *
What leaped in Elizabeth's womb? A "baby" (see Luke 1:41).
What was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb? John the Baptist (see Luke 1:15.
What struggled within Rebekah? "Children" (see Genesis 25:22).
What was considered a "Nazirite" while still in the womb? Samson (see Judges 13:7).
What leaned on the Lord even before his birth? David (see Psalms 71:6).
What comes to the physical body even before birth? A "spirit" (see Ecclesiastes 11:5).
What was known by God even before birth? Jeremiah (see Jeremiah 1:5).
* * *
Let's do the math. Jesus was six months younger than John, and yet the fetal John leaped in joy at the encounter with the perhaps merely embryonic Jesus (read Luke 1 for the entire story). This biblical account tells me that personhood is associated with even pre-"viable" pre-born life.
* * *
It can be argued convincingly that life begins at conception. I believe that. I would, though, like to present an additional case that when a creature has its own blood, it's living. Scripture says clearly that "the life of a creature is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 17:14, Deuteronomy 12:23, etc.).
In the case of humans, within weeks of conception, the pre-born baby has its own blood type distinct from her mother. Her heart is beating a mere 3 weeks after conception, cycling this blood through her tiny body.
I think a death takes place when a fertilized egg is discarded. But for those unconvinced by the arguments supporting that position, perhaps they would be convinced by the argument I present above, that life is in the blood, and that shedding another's innocent blood is murder.
* * *
Scripture equates blood with life (see Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 17:14 and Deuteronomy 12:23). Breathing enables blood to do its thing, transmitting oxygen (among other things) where it's needed, and so breathing is also associated with life (see Genesis 1:30, 2:7, 6:17, 7:15 and 7:22).
41. Jim H said the following at 3:16 PM on May 19:
JB,
Ted has covered this very thoroughly but I would like to add some points and one other telling Scripture.
First of all, your interpretation of the Jeremiah passage may indeed be correct, but neither can you rule out the possibility that the text implies personhood prior to birth. And there is one other text I want to highlight.
Genesis 16:11 (NIV)
The angel of the Lord also said to her: “You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery.
Note that Hagar had not yet given birth and yet God said "you are NOW with CHILD." (emphasis added by me).
So when the whole counsel of Scripture is brought to bear on this abortion issue, people who continue to support abortion are either involved in self-deception or the twisting of Scripure to suit their own presuppositions.
42. JB said the following at 4:02 PM on May 19:
Ted,
Maybe my problem is that I don't know biblical languages and can't tell the way in which some of these terms are used. In English, at least, we have a variety of ways to refer to pregnancy which don't necessarily carry the full ideological interpretations one might assume if one took them literally. For example, a pregnant woman might say, "My baby is kicking" one moment and say, "I'm *going to* have a baby" the next. No one bothers to correct her by saying either, "Actually, you feel fetal movement" or, "In reality, you already have a baby." In both cases, we recognize that these are simply colloquial ways of referring to pregnancy which are used freely by people on both sides of the abortion debate.
That being the case, I don't know how to interpret a passage saying a "baby" leaped in Elizabeth's womb. If someone said this to you in English, I think you'd be on very shaky ground inferring their views on the personhood of fetuses.
Additionally, we have difficulties with translation to contend with. For example, my NIV gives alternate readings for Luke 1:15 ("...he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth"), Ecclesiastes 11:5 ("...how the body is formed in a mother's womb..."), and Psalm 71:6 ("From birth I have relied on you...") which don't have even that very ambiguous suggestion of fetal personhood.
As for blood and breath, my understanding is that Jewish tradition is ambiguous on this point, treating a fetus as without ethical standing until a certain gestational time and thereafter treating it as an inferior form until it begins to breathe. The soul, in Jewish tradition, is in the breath, and this (not life) is the relevant issue here.
I'm not really dogmatic on this point and I'm willing to be persuaded, but to my mind the case that abortion is murder is not at all clear from scripture.
43. Alden said the following at 4:05 PM on May 19:
"Again, the primary chant was clearly "We are ND." A minority of those present in the audience were chanting "Yes we can." Because of that fact, it was wrong for me to criticize the entire ND audience as supportive of Obama's pro-abortion policies. But because that phrase was chanted, I don't think it's appropriate to retract this blog post."
Perhaps not to retract. But to add another editor's note or to edit the post does seem warranted. You've already done so. However, your post still obscures the fact that it was "a few women" shouting, not the entire crowd.
Ted, I appreciate your willingness to at least discuss this. However, I am less concerned about whether you're correct than whether you're being charitable to the Notre Dame community. You seem to be more concerned with the correctness of your article in your note. However, by obscuring the actual response by the majority of the crowd and instead focusing on the response of a small minority (even in your editor's note), you portray the Notre Dame community as Catholic yet unwilling to stand up for truth: as hypocritical. If this is your charge, I would appreciate if you would argue this straightforwardly with an example that actual exhibits this (or, show why it is that this example does show this). Perhaps you can talk about whether the University should have honored the President in the first place. But I, and the pro-life Notre Dame community, would prefer that you not defame our University's reputation for the sake of your post.
44. Ted Slater said the following at 4:53 PM on May 19:
Alden (#43) -- I've further revised my original post. I appreciate your thoughtful correction.
45. Jim H said the following at 5:17 PM on May 19:
JB,
So when the Angel of God told Hagar she was pregnant with a CHILD, he was using informal, imprecise colloquial language?
46. Jeremy said the following at 6:10 PM on May 19:
"Jeremy's on a mission to skew Scripture to how he sees fit....and he thinks he's genuinely doing us a service, opening our eyes to the truth..."
It saddens me if you really do think that. I am trying to approach Scripture as authoritative and understand what it says, rather than read my own views into it. This is not agenda-based (indeed I personally DO think abortion should be illegal) -- I just have a very high view of Scripture and it makes me uncomfortable when others seem to approach it in such a cavalier manner.
Now in response to the points Ted raised (and of course, I have responded to these before, although many such responses have not been published) -- the crux of Ted's argument in comment #40 rests on word choice, "baby", "child", and so forth. In comment #42, JB responded to that rather well, and as an elabortion, let me make this facetious argument using the exact same train of thought:
Genesis 38:9: "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother."
Genesis 22:17: "Indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."
(Note that the same Hebrew word for "seed" is used in both passages) Now clearly "seed" refers to living human beings with souls in the latter passage. Therefore, since the same word is used in the former, those "seeds" too must be living human beings with souls. Therefore life begins even BEFORE conception, and anything that intentionally results in the death of sperm is morally equivalent to abortion.
I trust the point is clear -- the same word can have different meanings in different contexts, and trying to read in a pre-conceived notion that is not supported by the text itself is dangerous.
Since this comment is too long for anyone to bother reading already, let me make it a bit longer -- the story of John leaping within Elizabeth's womb in particular strikes me as a poor proof text. Surely no one thinks that John was able, of his own physical ability, to sense Jesus and leap for joy in response. Of course not; the story clearly involves the supernatural work of God as a sign. And the story of Balaam's donkey in Numbers 22 definitively demonstrates that God need not use a human being with a soul in order to accomplish his purposes. There really is no principle related to abortion to be derived from John leaping within Elizabeth; again such a reading requires trying to insert a pre-conceived notion into a text that does not relate to it.
The argument related to blood is more interesting (although pointing out the arguably greater significance of breath would seem to undermine it as related to abortion), but I'll save a response to that for later.
47. EKB said the following at 6:25 PM on May 19:
As an ND student who wasn't at graduation (not out of protest, just not in the class of 09), I'm relieved to hear what actually happened from Michael and Alden. Ted, thanks for clarifying the original post. The underlying issue here is important, but it's also important that situations be portrayed honestly and accurately. Notre Dame's reputation shouldn't be harmed based on the radical views of a few. Again, thanks on behalf of the ND community.
48. BDB said the following at 7:55 PM on May 19:
Are you folks confusing Jeremy with Jethro?
Let's see, at 24 weeks, it probably was possible for John to make him presence felt by his mother, like when babies kick.
One wonders whether Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Spirit would be something experienced by John resulting in the kicking thing. The whole Holy Spirit filling thing is by definition supernatural, so who knows what would happen if the baby was filled first, then kicked mom. But my reading of the passage was that it was related to Mary's speaking, and, in theory, a baby in utero can hear some things.
This was mentioned of John in Luke 1:14:
He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
The greeting part is in Luke 1:41-44
41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
49. Matthew said the following at 8:57 PM on May 19:
Thank you, Ted, for your kindness in editing your post. I do understand that the other publications did report that phrase, and it saddens me to think of the flaws of the modern media. And also the irrelevance of Notre Dame's football program in recent years.
But in all seriousness, I do appreciate your consideration in this matter.
50. JB said the following at 9:13 PM on May 19:
Jim H,
The angel of God didn't tell Hagar anything like the passage you quote because Hagar didn't speak English. "To be with child" is a fairly common, if old fashioned, English idiom which simply means "to be pregnant." As I mentioned before, I don't know the meaning of the original text. It could be that the original clearly implies "in the presence of a young human person" or it could be that it simply says Hagar is pregnant and to the translator "with child" seemed a straightforward translation. For what it's worth, the TNIV says, "You are now pregnant..." and the NRSV says, "Now you have conceived..."
But even sticking with the NIV for a moment, the passage is, "You are now with child and you will have a son." This seems to me an odd sort of phrasing. If the first clause ("you are now with child") means that Hagar has in her uterus a human person, then it is strange for the second clause ("you will have a son") to be in the future tense. If it's already a child, isn't it already a son as well? I'm being picky of course, but so are you.
So basically, I'm not convinced that this passage tells us anything about the moral status of fetuses.
51. Katie said the following at 9:18 PM on May 19:
I cannot understand how someone who, both subjectively and objectively shows so much love for his wife and daughters can be so strongly supportive of killing babies. After all, babies are children too. Maybe calling them babies dehumanizes them, we should start referring to them as children. There are laws that protect children from murder.
At least in what I've observed, men are stronger advocates for "a woman's right" than are women. Isn't this backward?
52. Alden said the following at 9:36 PM on May 19:
Thanks, Ted. God bless.
53. Texas Craig said the following at 9:51 PM on May 19:
The abortion arguments get tiring because they so frequently are not engaged in civilly. As noted on here, we tend to demonize those with whom we disagree. There are basically two groups of people on the issue - those with strong views and those who do not have strong views. I don't think the in-your-face and demeaning approach works to persuade either of those groups.
Rather, for those with entrenched positions, I think we do our best to find common ground and pull them out of their trenches on those common-ground issues. For those without strong opinions, we are well-served to lay out cogent and persuasive (and not demeaning or belittling) arguments to explain why we believe abortion is wrong.
On here, I tend to find the articles to be neither of these. Rather, they tend to be strongly-worded denunciations (usually with some snarky comments added). While I support the authors' right to their opinions, I also find it to be counterproductive to the pro-life cause. Perhaps it makes the writer feel better they are "doing something" about abortion, but it is more likely comparable to the street corner evangelist preaching with a bullhorn that "the world is coming to an end so repent and believe in Jesus." The message may be true, but the method is most likely entirely ineffective in achieving the goal.
54. Jim H said the following at 11:15 AM on May 20:
JB,
I happen to have the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible on my computer (it is part of the my Libronix Scholar's Library). I wish I could somehow past Hebrew characters from that reference into this post so others who know Hebrew can look at the words themsleves. But direct English rendering of those Hebrew words are "pregnant and have child son."
And I don't think the NIV rendering is necessarily strange - it is conveying two pieces of information - 1) that she has a child inside her and 2) it is male.
55. Jim H said the following at 11:59 AM on May 20:
Texas Craig #53,
I agree with some of what you are saying but on the other hand when confronting great evil (which I believe abortion is) there is a place for the zealous, passionate, and uncompromising soul. I would argue that if Martin Luther had been more "tame" and civil, there would probably have never been a Protestant Reformation.
56. Texas Craig said the following at 12:13 PM on May 20:
And, to follow up on my earlier comment, I think one easy middle ground argument is "I don't know exactly when life begins. Therefore, I would rather err on the side of caution and not destroy the life inside a woman's womb." When in doubt, caution is better. Moreover, I think we can focus on arguments like "abortion desensitizes people to the destruction of life in general." These are just a couple of thoughts, but there are a whole range of arguments that can appeal to people broadly, even if they are uncertain as to when life begins.
57. Texas Craig said the following at 12:27 PM on May 20:
Jim H:
I guess I would draw a distinction between being mean, condescending, belittling, and snarky versus being direct (even when you know it will not be received well). I am not advocating being anything less than direct. But, I am advocating being civil in our approach. I will give you an example:
Recently, I had a long discussion with a relative who has made some poor choices. I told this relative that the things in their life they were unhappy about were "the direct result of poor choices they had made, and now they were suffering the consequences of those choices." That is literally what I told them.
In contrast, I could have said "You have been stupid and done some really stupid stuff, and now you have to live with it. You made your bed, now lie in it." To me, the second uses words that are uncivil and unnecessarily inflammatory, even though it communicates the same point.
My ultimate point is that I can communicate something directly without being inflammatory, and I think I should do that when possible. Moreover, I think it is important to choose the method that is most effective at accomplishing the goal.
58. BDB said the following at 12:50 PM on May 20:
Jim H (#55) wrote:
>>I would argue that if Martin Luther had been more "tame" and civil, there would probably have never been a Protestant Reformation. <<
Can you identify which of Luther's 95 Theses were snarky?
59. Jim H said the following at 1:13 PM on May 20:
Texas Craig #57.
Well said. I agree.
60. Jim H said the following at 1:37 PM on May 20:
BDB #58.
I don't think any of the 95 theses were snarky, but how many of Luther's works have you read? I have only read "Bondage of the Will" and the below excerpt from that work illustrates Luther's confrontational (to put it politely) style. This book was written as a rebuttal to Erasmus' work entitled "On Free Will."
"Even grammarians and schoolboys on street corners know that nothing more is signified by verbs in the imperative mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should be expressed by words in the indicative. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done, or can be done? pg 159
I don't have the book in front of me and that quote came from a Reformation website. One other quote that I'll never forget and will have to paraphrase since I don't have the book in front of me is when he compared Erasmus's writing to a silver platter piled high with dung. In other words, he was saying that Erasmus was a great writer, but the contents of his writings were dung.
61. Mike said the following at 3:53 PM on May 20:
Katie (#51) wrote -
"At least in what I've observed, men are stronger advocates for 'a woman's right' than are women. Isn't this backward?"
It's not just from what you've observed, Katie. Multiple surveys confirm the same thing.
And, depending on your view of the male of the species, it's not backward, either. If you were a predatory man who wanted to have sex with a woman without risking consequences, would you be in favor of abortion on demand, or against it?
It's quite interesting that many of the most prominent politicians with a history of philandering - Bill Clinton and Bob Packwood, for example - are also the most fervent defenders of a "woman's right".
But we don't all fall in that category...
:-)
62. JB said the following at 6:45 PM on May 20:
Mike,
Actually, both the most recent Pew and Gallop polls show that women are more likely to support abortion rights/be "pro-choice" than men. I'm also not sure about philanderers being more likely to support abortion. Newt Gingrich and John McCain come to mind as two prominent abortion opponents who were less than faithful to their wives.
63. Mike said the following at 3:46 AM on May 21:
JB (#62) -
I was referring more to serial philanderers than to the examples you were giving. But I'm sure we could go back and forth all day with examples and counterexamples.
As far as the survey data, the information I was looking at referred to support for restrictions on abortion. I don't remember the exact survey or poll being used. Might be a bit dated. Nevertheless, it remains true that at least some surveys - a large number over a significant number of years - indicate that support for abortion is strong among men.
64. Louise from Chicago said the following at 5:00 AM on May 21:
Comment 62, which wives?
65. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:28 AM on May 21:
In general a larger percentage of women than men believe that abortion should remain a legal option.
Anyone remember First Lady Barbara Bush (wife of the first Pres. Bush)?
Doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to figure out why!
66. Ted Slater said the following at 9:44 AM on May 21:
Louise (#65) -- you wrote that "In general a larger percentage of women than men believe that abortion should remain a legal option."
That's not really true. Some years, more women than men are pro-life; other years, more men than women are pro-life. Visit the Gallup site and scroll down to the "Gender Agreement" section for the data.
67. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:49 AM on May 21:
I'm pro-choice. Up until the sperm meets the egg.
68. Jo said the following at 11:26 AM on May 21:
Amir, #67:
That's brilliant. Love it.
69. BDB said the following at 12:45 PM on May 21:
Jim H (#60):
It looks like Erasmus fired first with a disrespectful diatribe, Luther answered with the work you mention.:
Cite is here.
The conflict between Erasmus and Luther is a GREAT example of how being insulting and direspectful degenerates into a mess that helps no one.
70. Jim H said the following at 3:34 PM on May 21:
BDB #69
The point is that when people are passionate about what they believe in and when the discussion at hand is of supreme importance (in Luther's case, the Gospel and in our case abortion), people are likely to get riled up. Sometime my blood boils when I think about abortion. Now I agree that even when your passions are inflamed, you should try to keep the discussion civil while never shying away from being direct, but I tend to sympathize with Luther – his passions was absolutely inflamed because he was fighting for the most important thing in the world – the purity of the Gospel. I don’t think a dispassionate Luther would have been a catalyst the Protestant Reformation. In fact I would go so far to say that two of the big problems with American Christianity today are apathy and dispassion – we are so fat, dumb, happy, and over- stimulated with TV and the Internet (not to mention self-indulgent and narcissistic) that few people seem to care deeply about anything anymore.
Now getting back to your comment - on what basis are you saying this exchange helped no one? Are you basing that solely on the Luther’s Wikipedia bio or have you read “On Bondage of the Will?” Do you understand the historical significance of that work? That book is considered by some theologians to be one of the great masterpieces of the Protestant Reformation (barbs and all). Here are some quotes about this work:
B.B Warfield: “dialectic and polemic masterpiece…in a true sense the manifesto of the Reformation.”
J.I. Packer: “In its fertility of thought, its vigor of language, its profound theological grasp, its sustained strength of argument, and the grand sweep of its exposition, it stands unsurpassed among Luther’s writings.
71. Kailey said the following at 10:20 AM on May 26:
I am what many of you would probably consider a leftist heathen who is "for murder." I am confused with the equation of how being pro-choice is being pro-abortion. I believe that abortion is wrong, that there should be some limits (age, etc), however if we begin to control the rights of free people to make choices of their own volition regarding certain things we view as "immoral" what is to stop others from impeding your right to practice your religion? I am not saying that there should be free abortions for everyone, but as a society there wouldn't be a need for abortion if kids were taught about sex, abstinence and how to protect themselves from their own parents. It is 100% naive to believe that your teen is not going to experiment with sexual activity. Addressing the root causes of "unwanted" pregnancy, such as poverty, rape, incest as well as limited education, a more amicable and useful solution might present itself. Teaching kids about condoms, birth control etc. seems scary, but none of the kids I know that learned this stuff in school got pregnant or had an abortion.
Access to proper pre-natal care, insurance for newborns and kids, as well as the availability of child care, support systems for single mothers, and expanding avenues to make adoptions more available are all viable alternatives to the abortion debate.
Instead of judging other people for mistakes they have made or for their political opinion, forget not that abortion is really a non-issue when you get down to the meat of the debate. There will always be people that think abortion is wrong, and those that support a woman's right to choose. I 100% stand behind the right for women to choose, but, far more important to me is the access women have to making educated choices. We as a nation have the power to stop abortions, not through laws (as unsafe back-alley coat-hanger abortions will probably become common-place), but through action to promote better options.
We can work together on minimizing the number of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion by preparing young people to make responsible and educated decisions.
President Obama deserves praise for his poise and dignity during his speech. Whether or not you agree with him, there is a time and a place for protest and a celebration like a college graduation is not it. The day was supposed to be about the students, and President Obama did a wonderful job commending them.
72. Jim H said the following at 11:08 AM on May 27:
Kailey #71.
You said:
-----------------------------------
"..however if we begin to control the rights of free people to make choices of their own volition regarding certain things we view as "immoral" what is to stop others from impeding your right to practice your religion?
-------------------------------------
What about the right to life of the children in the womb? They don't get to have a "choice" in the matter. If you accept the premise that a child in the womb is a person with a soul (and I understand many don't accept this premise), then their right to life should absolutely be protected. And even if there is uncertainty about when personhood begins in the womb, shouldn't we err conservatively, on the side of preserving life?
So many people live in the here and now that they don't think about eternal consequences for their actions, beliefs and support (whether explicit or implicit) of evil policies.
Do you as a Christian feel comfortable standing before God someday and explaining your position on abortion? I wonder what Christian mothers who had abortions will say to their children in heaven whose lives were snuffed out by abortion. I am sure in heaven there will be complete forgiveness, but I wonder if we will still feel regret in heaven for things we did or supported on this earth?
73. MarkS said the following at 7:36 AM on Jun 9:
The real question asked by Mr Slater which seems lost in the hubbub is when is it appropriate to stand strong (paraphrase). This is very important and is one of my conserns in my life in almost any subject or situation.
While I do not have a pat answer other than the vague admonition to stay in The Spirit, let's just note our ultimate example, Jesus.
Jesus ALWAYS stood for right and NEVER spared feelings or His embarrassment.
Jesus spoke with LOVE.
Jesus spoke with AUTHORITY and TRUTH.
But He never once tried to use the political or social means of the day to advance His teaching. He never once tried to direct the people through human ordained institutions (politics).
This is a touchy subject for me, because we are oft hated, but are we hated for His sake (good) or for our own jerkness (bad)?
While I subscribe whole-heartedly to the moral values of the "religious right", I wonder that preaching from the "bully pulpit" comes across as showing God's love.
Both approaches are exampled in Scripture, Jesus used the one on one Great Commandment approach. But many men of God througout time have been commanded to say "thus says The Lord" and what followed wasn't so lovey-dubby.
So the question remains, when should I follow my urge to shout "Woe unto you America, for you have become as Sodom, and are like unto Gomorra!"? On the morning following our last election, not about specifically the President (please respect his office) but about the whole attitude of the people and the result of other ballot issues, I really felt like covering myself with a Walmart bag and rolling in the fireplace.